Campaign Against Iran Sanctions Grows Within Political Right and Left

President Obama's push for U.N. sanctions on Iran
is gaining in intensity this week even as the U.N. Security Council
neglected to include the issue in its April agenda. Simultaneously, the
president is urging Congress not to rush into passing sanctions on Iran in hopes
that such legislation would not derail his attempts at a diplomatic resolution
or mustering support for international sanctions from Russia and China, two of
the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The debate continues,
however, as to whether any sanctions whatsoever would be effective at this point
in slowing Iran's nuclear program.

Many policymakers feel that
sanctions will be ineffective, though for widely varying reasons. Some, such as
Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) support President Obama's efforts to
resolve the issue diplomatically. Increasing sanctions,
Rep. Ellison argues, would strengthen rather than harm the regime, both
politically and economically.

Politically the regime would benefit doubly, Ellison contends, as increased
pressure from the outside world would result in a surge of nationalism and
galvanize many into rallying around the nuclear program even if they disagree
with their government. The Green Movement would be marginalized by the
exigencies of national solidarity. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi has
repeatedly denounced sanctions, Rep. Ellison points out, and has explicitly
stated that opposition to sanctions is fundamental to the Green philosophy.

Rep. Ellison also argues that sanctions would, ironically, benefit the
government economically. A
RAND Corporation report on the efficacy of existing sanctions indicates that
there is a direct correlation between broad sanctions, such as on gasoline, and
an increase in the Revolutionary Guards' wealth. The guards, taking advantage of
the withering private sectors most affected by sanctions, gain monopolies on
essential goods and services. "The more effective the embargo, the greater the
shortages, the larger the Revolutionary Guards profits," the report says.

The RAND report, however, supported targeted sanctions aimed primarily at the
Revolutionary Guard and key members of the government. Sanctions, RAND conceded,
were of limited utility in halting the nuclear program or economically impacting
the regime: "further sanctions against Iran are not likely to alter Teheran's
nuclear policies." At the same time, making a show of solidarity with the
opposition movement and condemning the nuclear program at least symbolically is
essential, the report argues. "In any case, further sanctions are almost
inevitable, given the paucity of other viable options." In other words, RAND
believes symbolic targeted sanctions with limited practical value remain the
only option for American policymakers.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, appears to
see sanctions as a necessary last step before America either accepts the
reality of a nuclear Iran, or engages in military strikes to attempt to destroy
the program. His statements frame sanctions more as a warning shot across Iran's
bow than a measure with actual tangible effect on the nuclear program.

This approach may explain the reluctance of P5 members Russia and China to
support the American bid for sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. RIA Novosti,
a state-owned Russian news agency,
quotes Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying sanctions should not be a mere
precursor to an air strike on Iran. "Any Security Council decision [on Iran]
should clearly state that they can not be used as a basis for the use of force
[against Iran]," Lavrov stated. Reluctance to back sanctions proposed by the
United States may also stem from
tension between Russia and the U.S. over their mutual nuclear treaties and
the American missile shield being installed in the region.

Reasons for China's continued ambiguity on the topic of sanctions is even more
opaque, though the
Christian Science Monitor hypothesizes it may have to do with upcoming
debates on China's influence on the value of the dollar.

U.N. sanctions are too little, too late, according to two recent articles in the
Wall Street Journal. Detailing the nuances of current and proposed sanctions, an
article by Steve Stecklow highlights the miniscule impact of current
sanctions on the Iranian economy, saying the financial impact is one quarter of
what Iran makes in a day in oil revenues. Asset freezes are the most prevalent
tool used in existing sanctions, a strategy that proves effective only against
small sums of money and leaves many back doors open for Iran to continue
pursuing its technological and financial interests. Newer sanctions may adjust
for this, attempting to make conducting business difficult for Iran rather than
simply tracking accounts down and freezing them, though exactly how remains to
be seen.

A
WSJ Opinion article published yesterday excoriates the Obama administration
for its perceived lack of resolve on the Iranian nuclear issue. The President's
approach, the Journal argues, has been too wavering and hasn't had enough of a
definitive impact on Iranian policy. The U.N. sanctions, the Journal argues,
should have been sidelined in favor of American sanctions in tandem with allies
such as France and the United Kingdom. The article neglects to enumerate
precisely how American sanctions would halt or even delay Iran's nuclear program
whatsoever.

The article continues, attacking President Obama for his recent diplomatic
tension with America's regional ally Israel, which the Journal feels has
de-fanged the threat of increased sanctions further. "All of these actions
suggest to us that Mr. Obama has concluded that a nuclear Iran is inevitable,
even if he can't or won't admit it publicly." The opinion piece closes by saying
that President Bush is also to blame for neglecting to let Israel "act more
firmly" during his term, presumably an allusion to a military strike. Evidently
the authors of the article have not read the myriad studies and analyses
indicating the explosive and unpredictable consequences of engaging in a
conflict with Iran, or the fact that such a strike at this point may only
briefly delay the program, if at all.

The article accuses President Obama of "acting as if he believes a nuclear
Tehran is inevitable." Given the uncertainty of the efficacy of air strikes, and
the lack of support for sweeping sanctions from P5 members Russia and China,
accepting a nuclear Iran may not be a matter of choice for President Obama, but
a matter of realism.

About: InsideIRAN.org is a bi-weekly
journal of analysis and research written primarily by scholars and activists
living inside Iran and those who have recently left the country. Our purpose is
to provide in-depth information about the internal political dynamic that is
unavailable in the mainstream media. Through research and commentary, we will
continue to document the political and theological crisis. www.insideiran.org